|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#431
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski (writing in response to Nate Nagel) Wrote: I'm sure that in your mind, the Studebaker was _much_ better at panic stops than a typical car, right? ;-) And I'm sure that you precisely tweaked the headlight voltage and aiming to get a few more feet out of those headlight beams, right? ;-) And of course, we _know_ that, like almost all Americans, you're better than average drivers, right? ;-) But despite all the "Boy, am I good" self-delusion that you treasure, it's _still_ true that rural two-lane roads feature curves, hills, interesections and blind spots. They can have all sorts of obstructions or potential victims in the road. And the driving you describe, defend and brag about was illegal, irresponsible and stupid. What's amazing is that you do this in a thread where you're arguing that your judgement is better than that of highway officials and neighborhood residents. You argue that you should be able to choose your own speed through neighborhoods, and as evidence, you brag about your irresponsible driving. Not only are you losing the argument on a factual basis, you're shooting yourself in the foot with your own bragging. Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] Well said Frank -- RogerDodger |
Ads |
#432
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Yes, braking with the brakes, Brent. While in a curve. Every day. It's quite normal. google for "friction circle" to see why that's a bad idea (yes, on a bike too.) I don't need to google friction circles. I know all about them. It's interesting that Brent claimed _I_ was talking about racing, i.e. limit of adhesion situations, now that you are using a term that really pertains only to that situation. It was your quote about what a 'skilled bike racer' does. You are basically telling us we are wrong to apply racing techniques to driving on the public roads while at the same time chastising us for not doing so and prefering not to have to. |
#433
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Yes, braking with the brakes, Brent. While in a curve. Every day. It's quite normal. google for "friction circle" to see why that's a bad idea (yes, on a bike too.) I don't need to google friction circles. I know all about them. It's interesting that Brent claimed _I_ was talking about racing, i.e. limit of adhesion situations, now that you are using a term that really pertains only to that situation. If a vehicle is not undergoing extreme lateral acceleration, there is plenty of friction available for braking as well as turning. And, as on freeway exit ramps, I have sense to stay away from ten-tenths cornering moves. But that's exactly what you were busting me on earlier - entering a corner at, say, 6/10 and suddenly discovering that I needed 10/10 or more - which can happen. You also suggested that I slow down in that situation, implying braking... nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#434
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:43:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: There cannot possibly be more than one person reading this who doesn't brake while turning! True enough. Plenty who /try/ not to brake while turning, of course, but anyone can get it wrong and go into the curve too fast. And then you get that feeling of the front wheel going sideways and think: "Ah yes, I remember this feeling, and what comes next is... ouch!" ;-) Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#435
|
|||
|
|||
Peter wrote in message ...
Nate Nagel wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Brent P wrote: In article , Frank Krygowski wrote: Brent P wrote: I would suggest Frank ride his bicycle through a decreasing radius turn that wasn't visable until he was in it such that it forced him to brake hard. This would probably be the best lesson as to why this sort of design should be avoided. Braking while turning is as ill-advised on a bicycle as it is driving. Probably more so. :-) Almost every time I make a turn on the bike, it's done with a decreasing radius, and with braking while in the turn! This is normal for a bicycle! Sheesh. Newbies! Not braking by coasting frank. braking with the brakes. Coasting is normal on the road, not squeezing the hand brakes. Yes, braking with the brakes, Brent. While in a curve. Every day. It's quite normal. google for "friction circle" to see why that's a bad idea (yes, on a bike too.) It's only a bad idea if you enter the turn at a speed where *all* of the available traction is used for cornering, i.e. too fast. But since many turns are entered before the driver can completely see the turning radius throughout the turn he should always leave sufficient margin so there is still traction available for braking in addition to cornering. Fortunately the mathematics of perpendicular vector addition help us out here. The equation of a circle is x^2 + y^2 = r^2 where we can use 'x' for the traction available for braking and 'y' for the traction available for cornering, and 'r', the resultant is the total available traction. Let's assume the total traction is 1. Then entering the turn so fast that cornering alone requires a traction of 1.0 would leave nothing available for braking. But entering even a little slower, say where cornering only requires a traction of 0.9 now allows us to use some braking up to a traction of sqrt(1-.9^2) = 0.44 I'm not going to check your math, but it sounds about right, neglecting the fact that a typical friction circle for a car is more of a friction oval-esque kind of thing (and generally can't be found under acceleration, unless you have ridiculous amounts of power.) However, on principle, I try to do all my braking before a corner at least on the street as, what happens if I enter a corner at what I think is 6/10 and it turns out to be 10/10 and I suddenly find that I can't brake? (the exact situation Frank's been chastising me about and claiming I'm unskilled for finding myself in.) What would have happened had I followed Frank's recommendation to "slow down" once I discovered the curve was tighter than I thought? What would have happened if I'd entered the initial part of the curve "hot," planning on trail braking to the apex? Alternately, if I'm planning on trail braking into a corner, that might leave me closer to the circle than I want to be on the street, even if it's not a 10/10 corner... I guess my point is that you are correct there is a time and place for trail braking but generally I don't really see much need for it on the street. I generally try to corner under very light power so I'm holding a constant speed and have as big a cushion between my actual state and the limits of the friction circle as possible at any given time and speed. (obviously depending on the corner that might be difficult on a bike unless you have short cranks, but you get the idea) nate |
#436
|
|||
|
|||
Nate Nagel wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: If a vehicle is not undergoing extreme lateral acceleration, there is plenty of friction available for braking as well as turning. And, as on freeway exit ramps, I have sense to stay away from ten-tenths cornering moves. But that's exactly what you were busting me on earlier - entering a corner at, say, 6/10 and suddenly discovering that I needed 10/10 or more - which can happen. You also suggested that I slow down in that situation, implying braking... This doesn't seem to make sense to me. If one is driving (or riding) reasonably well under one's limits (as one should be doing in traffic on public roads) and paying attention (also as one should be doing in traffic on public roads), then there aren't many things that should "suddenly" push one over these limits. If something as unextraordinary as a decrease in curve radius will push you over the edge, then you are driving to close to it; if you are driving sufficiently fast that you can't see what is ahead in time to react to it appropriately, then you are driving too fast! This isn't rocket science. -- greg byshenk - - Leiden, NL |
#437
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Baker wrote:
The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently that one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such situations. This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if possible. I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting that they do; I am justing noting the fact. -- greg byshenk - - Leiden, NL |
#438
|
|||
|
|||
In article 4b39d.135425$wV.11486@attbi_s54,
Brent P wrote: In article , Frank Krygowski wrote: Nate Nagel wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Yes, braking with the brakes, Brent. While in a curve. Every day. It's quite normal. google for "friction circle" to see why that's a bad idea (yes, on a bike too.) I don't need to google friction circles. I know all about them. It's interesting that Brent claimed _I_ was talking about racing, i.e. limit of adhesion situations, now that you are using a term that really pertains only to that situation. It was your quote about what a 'skilled bike racer' does. You are basically telling us we are wrong to apply racing techniques to driving on the public roads while at the same time chastising us for not doing so and prefering not to have to. Hmm. Recap here. Frank thinks it is perfectly reasonable to a) Post the exact same warning signs on a constant curve, and increasing radius curve with the same entry radius as the constant curve. b) Have the increasing radius of the curve be hidden to traffic entering the curve c) Excoriate drivers who enter the increasing radius curve in the same way as the constant curve, and then have to use racing maneuvers to avoid leaving the roadway using as evidence d) The "fact" that most drivers, even those unfamiliar with the road, get through without such maneuvers and without leaving the roadway even though e) Barriers at the side of the roadway show many signs of impact, and no data is available on the maneuvers most of those who DIDN'T hit had to take to avoid doing so. And he "thinks" he's being perfectly reasonable. |
#439
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Matthew Russotto wrote: In article 4b39d.135425$wV.11486@attbi_s54, Brent P wrote: In article , Frank Krygowski wrote: Nate Nagel wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Yes, braking with the brakes, Brent. While in a curve. Every day. It's quite normal. google for "friction circle" to see why that's a bad idea (yes, on a bike too.) I don't need to google friction circles. I know all about them. It's interesting that Brent claimed _I_ was talking about racing, i.e. limit of adhesion situations, now that you are using a term that really pertains only to that situation. It was your quote about what a 'skilled bike racer' does. You are basically telling us we are wrong to apply racing techniques to driving on the public roads while at the same time chastising us for not doing so and prefering not to have to. Hmm. Recap here. Frank thinks it is perfectly reasonable to a) Post the exact same warning signs on a constant curve, and increasing radius curve with the same entry radius as the constant curve. b) Have the increasing radius of the curve be hidden to traffic entering the curve c) Excoriate drivers who enter the increasing radius curve in the same way as the constant curve, and then have to use racing maneuvers to avoid leaving the roadway Ack. Substitute "decreasing" for "increasing" above. Everyone but Frank knew what I meant, of course. using as evidence d) The "fact" that most drivers, even those unfamiliar with the road, get through without such maneuvers and without leaving the roadway even though e) Barriers at the side of the roadway show many signs of impact, and no data is available on the maneuvers most of those who DIDN'T hit had to take to avoid doing so. And he "thinks" he's being perfectly reasonable. |
#440
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
greg byshenk wrote: Alan Baker wrote: The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently that one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such situations. This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if possible. I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting that they do; I am justing noting the fact. Actually, they have a lot to do with it. In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential neighbourhoods. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Turning...one foot riding | Memphis Mud | Unicycling | 4 | April 26th 04 10:08 PM |
Who is going to Interbike? | Bruce Gilbert | Techniques | 2 | October 10th 03 09:26 PM |